Comment: Have you seen an SEC team do that... EVER? This hits a
little at what HP is talking about with teams making regular use of
their backs as receivers, to the point where the backs are capable not
just in the flats but all over the field (see: Bush, Reggie; Drew,
Maurice; Bush, Michael). Cals' a Big Six member.

Georgia backs caught 47 balls, or four more than Reggie Bush caught by himself all last year and three more than Oregon running back Terrence Whitehead caught last year.

The leading back or Georgia caught 16 passes.

Georgia running backs caught a total of 2 TD passes, which means that most of their receptions were meaningless dump offs in the flat. So, no, we have never seen a UGA back do what Marshawn Lynch has done in that video.

Oh and Auburn was running a Pac-10 offense last year, which is why those guys caught all those balls.

Oh and by the way, Lynch caught 19 passes, which is 3 more than UGA's starting running back caught. He also had 2 TDs, which is as much as the entire UGA running back corps caught. And Lynch is a backup.

Your Blog title said, and what you won't see in the SEC. Not, who's back caught the most passes. What does it matter if you completed 50 passes to one back or to 4 backs? Guys, throwing to backs either in the flats or down field is not a new concept. It's been done for years. Heck, sometimes even SEC backs actually throw and complete passes. Oh yeah, they can also pass protect.

What in the world is a WAC 10 offense? Auburn runs an offense that ran out of style in the Pac-10 around 1998 and got Borges canned...

But its enough to succeed quite well in just its first year with a shaky quarterback.

Auburn is the exception in the SEC, they ARE throwing to their backs and tight ends, and out of base formation, as well as exotic formations. They've broken from the pack. That's why they're successful and will continue to be until Borges is caught up to. Judging by how Spurrier was never caught up to, it might take a while. That's the nature of the SEC.

Throwing to back is indicative of an offense that is making the most out of what is available, it forces the defense to reshuffle its responsibilities, taking a linebacker away from the line, for example, creating running room when another back gets the carry while one back is heading out for a pass.

Throwing to the flats just isn't a challenge for most defenses. FSU does it all the time to little success. Look at Lorenzo Booker's reception averages, that guy is an amazing guy with the ball in the open field, but even he can't do much because the more simplified attempts to throw the ball to a back everyone knows.

Is throwing the ball to a back all over the field new? NO. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing that the best teams do it, though, and a majority aren't, and especially not in the SEC. Their style of play just doesn't accomodate for it and they're going to suffer at the hands of sophisticated squads as a result because they simply have no ways of preparing for that, and all the other looks presented by sophisticated offenses.

Maybe, just maybe, the SEC offenses are in general playing against better, more talented defenses?? Certainly you wouldn't argue that Boise State and Louisville faced the kind of defenses that Auburn faced last year would you? Against Ga. LSU, and Ala.,in 2004, Auburn averaged 18.3 ppg.

Auburn's success in 2004 was more due to their improved defensive play than their offensive play. Their basic offensive package has not changed in the last 4-5 years. In 2004, the biggest difference in their offense was the fact that they kept Ronnie Brown and Carnel Williams in the game at the same time. Not, that they started running some kind of "sofisticated" offense that other SEC teams couldn't defend. That's was two of the best 4-5 backs in the country last year. And the improved play of Jason Campbell also helped. That's what made their offense different, and better.

You are really foolish. Have you ever thought that the reason the SEC defenses appear so good is that the offenses suck? And oh sure, it was just a coincidence that Auburn went from scoring 21 ppg in SEC games in 2003 to 30 ppg in SEC games in 2004....and a coincidenc that Jason Campbell suddenly became effective...and a coincidence that Ronnie Brown started catching passes. You do not understand college football and should not be allowed to watch if you think this.

Ah, but he is! The marvels of a democracy, y'all. Boise-UGA can't come soon enough, just to watch someone eat crow on this whole thing in glorious fashion. Could be us-we're calling the Dawgs by three, even though it kills us to do it.

Those highlights are great, but do you have any highlights against a defense? UCLA ranked 106th out of 117 teams in total defense. Stanford ranked 70th. Did he have any great highlights against USC? Oregon State? Oregon? Those defenses ranked 6th, 18th, and 35th, respectively. Just wondering.

He is obviously a quality running-back. I just want to see his moves against quality competition.

What I've really been thinking is why I'm wasting my time discussing college football with you.

Orson the Swindler is right, Boise - UGA can't get here quick enough. It's going to be a rude awakening for somebody. If Boise lays it on the Dawgs like you're predicting, I'll come back here and take my lumps. If Boise gets the dose of big time SEC football like I think they will, I bet you assholes can't be found.

No, because when legitimate SEC offenses (like Auburn) go up against legitimate Pac-10 defenses (like USC), they generally don't do much (except get shut out).

That's the proof right there.

Oh, Auburn's defense in 2003 gave up 282 yards per game while its defense in 2004 gave up 277 yards per game. Conversely, it's offensive output jumped about 50 yards per game with the exact same talent as the year before. So keep fooling youreslf into thinking that Borges had nothing do do with Auburn suddenly going undfeated.

Dawgy, you definitely are wasting your time, because you are just not equipped to engage in debate with me.

Heismanpundit, you basing that analysis on the one game between Auburn and USC in 2003. I hope not because Auburn lost 4 games that year and got shut down by several teams, Can you come up with maybe a few more say in last 40 years?

OK "Mr. Pompous-pants", maybe no one is equiped to get in a debate with you. That probably has to do with the fact that there is no equipment. The fact is recently, no "legitmate" SEC offense has gone up against a "legitimate" Pac-10 defense. Auburn in 2003 was NOT a legitimate SEC offense. One week after being blanked by a real-deal USC defense, they put up a big 3 on the scoreboard vs. mighty Georgia Tech. Then went on the finish with 5 losses. Not "legitimate".

Since you so like to point out how much Borges had to do with Auburn's great year last year (which I happen to agree with), I can't believe you'd turn right around and discredit that point by calling Auburn '03 a "legitimate" offense. I mean, according the your post (2 posts ago), Auburn had a average offense that year with "21 ppg" and Campbell "wasn't effective".

C'mon, at least admit (like I did) that there just really isn't that much evidence either way in this debate.